Older female and male siblings can't be alone together?

[doggie]

I wonder if they will even leave a father alone with a teen daughter (of course a mother could be with her son because in their view, women have no sexual desire and therefore wouldn't pose a threat). But honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if some of these siblings did get tingling feelings for each other. When they are that isolated and don't even have masturbation as an outlet, they might turn to whatever's available. Of course even in those cases it would rarely lead to full-on physical contact, but they would probably think that even the most minor thought is a sin.

I was just going to bring the same thing up. Plus all of the focus on sex but no understanding of it.

[mnb357]

From what I'm learning, Dawbs, fundies are never gay.

[Brainsample]

I wonder if they will even leave a father alone with a teen daughter (of course a mother could be with her son because in their view, women have no sexual desire and therefore wouldn't pose a threat). But honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if some of these siblings did get tingling feelings for each other. When they are that isolated and don't even have masturbation as an outlet, they might turn to whatever's available. Of course even in those cases it would rarely lead to full-on physical contact, but they would probably think that even the most minor thought is a sin.

You tend to live in a way that is informed by your experiences, no?

I have a friend who was regularly molested by multiple family members, and at least at one point in her life (while still in heavy denial and before she was forced to seriously deal with her own feelings about her past), she shared these concerns about her husband and her daughters, in the event that something would happen to her. Her daughters turned out to be very well built, shall we say, and her husband had a serious sex addiction problem. Given her own past and these other factors, at least at one point, she believed that she had legitimate concerns. But people mature and change, and she did work through much of the baggage that she buried when she was young.

I also question whether people seek out these lifestyles, at least sometimes, because it gives them the illusion of control over the very thing that they suffered earlier in life. Had lousy parenting? Be obsessed with parenting your own kids. Molested or promiscuous? Attempt to micromanage and protect your own children from their sexuality, dominating this part of their lives in order to do right by them. Had an abortion? Be pro-life now and have 15 kids to compensate. It's certainly not true of everyone, but I believe that it is true of at least some. It's also a whole lot more subtle and likely an unconscious compulsion rather than a decision to be an activist, making lemonade with the lemons you received. It's more of a denial issue and a total lack of self-awareness.

Why else would you have cause to fear your older children being alone together? It's not a very natural thing to consider.

[xDreamerx]

You tend to live in a way that is informed by your experiences, no?

I have a friend who was regularly molested by multiple family members, and at least at one point in her life (while still in heavy denial and before she was forced to seriously deal with her own feelings about her past), she shared these concerns about her husband and her daughters, in the event that something would happen to her. Her daughters turned out to be very well built, shall we say, and her husband had a serious sex addiction problem. Given her own past and these other factors, at least at one point, she believed that she had legitimate concerns. But people mature and change, and she did work through much of the baggage that she buried when she was young.

I also question whether people seek out these lifestyles, at least sometimes, because it gives them the illusion of control over the very thing that they suffered earlier in life. Had lousy parenting? Be obsessed with parenting your own kids. Molested or promiscuous? Attempt to micromanage and protect your own children from their sexuality, dominating this part of their lives in order to do right by them. Had an abortion? Be pro-life now and have 15 kids to compensate. It's certainly not true of everyone, but I believe that it is true of at least some. It's also a whole lot more subtle and likely an unconscious compulsion rather than a decision to be an activist, making lemonade with the lemons you received. It's more of a denial issue and a total lack of self-awareness.

Why else would you have cause to fear your older children being alone together? It's not a very natural thing to consider.

The squicky thing is, Leviticus makes no mention of father/daughter relationships when it lists those that are forbidden. Maybe it does elsewhere in the Bible? It's weird because it lists aunts, and your brother's wife and all kinds of things most people could consider *after* the closer degrees of affinity, but not something as basic as fathers and daughters. The Lot story makes it seem permissable. Also, in the Bible the father has ownership over his daughter's viginity until she is married. When she married, the father is paid for her. I'm not saying I agree (Gross!!!), but we looked at this in my Feminist approaches to the Bible class and I had to share it.

I also agree with Brainsample, in that I think fundies oft adopt lifestyles in reationary ways because of "baggage"--ew I used a Boob word--but I don't know else to put it. In some cases, the trauma is legitimate, such as abuse or something like that. But a lot times I think the fundies have been made to believe ordinary things are sinful so they go to the exteme with their children a la DQ.

[tehgoobster]

Didn't the Pearls write about sibling incest and how it is important to guard against it? I could have sworn I read something by them pertaining to this.

[Cassandra]

I wonder if they will even leave a father alone with a teen daughter (of course a mother could be with her son because in their view, women have no sexual desire and therefore wouldn't pose a threat). But honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if some of these siblings did get tingling feelings for each other. When they are that isolated and don't even have masturbation as an outlet, they might turn to whatever's available. Of course even in those cases it would rarely lead to full-on physical contact, but they would probably think that even the most minor thought is a sin.

I think they don't consider the gay option because they believe that you have to be recruited into that "lifestyle", sort of the way vampires work. As long as they shelter their kids enough, they think the kids will never even consider the option of being gay.

I was going to bring that up. Looking back I started getting crushes on classmates when I was 5 or 6 years old and it was a regular thing from then on out. I can't imagine what would have happened if I were to only socialize with my own family.

I remember there's a Family Guy episode where Lois has to homeschool her children, and her older son gets 'hot for teacher'. It's kind of relevant. I mean, if you have nothing else those feelings have to go somewhere.

[Brainsample]

Where does it say in the Bible that a groom pays the father for a bride? It's discussed in the case of rape or premarital sex, but not in the context of marriage when the bride and groom are wed in the eyes of God. No?

[FloraDoraDolly]

I was going to bring that up. Looking back I started getting crushes on classmates when I was 5 or 6 years old and it was a regular thing from then on out. I can't imagine what would have happened if I were to only socialize with my own family.

I remember there's a Family Guy episode where Lois has to homeschool her children, and her older son gets 'hot for teacher'. It's kind of relevant. I mean, if you have nothing else those feelings have to go somewhere.

I'm sure a lot of the fundie moms read "Flowers in the Attic" back in the day.

[Brainsample]

The squicky thing is, Leviticus makes no mention of father/daughter relationships when it lists those that are forbidden. Maybe it does elsewhere in the Bible? It's weird because it lists aunts, and your brother's wife and all kinds of things most people could consider *after* the closer degrees of affinity, but not something as basic as fathers and daughters. The Lot story makes it seem permissable. Also, in the Bible the father has ownership over his daughter's viginity until she is married.

More about this. If people teach this as being from the Bible, they're lying or are seriously misinterpreting it. The Bible doesn't even support this.

People like Phillips claim this is also Jewish tradition, and that's an outright lie. It's his version of Judaism. What Phillips promotes and what others promote concerning "ownership" of women is absolutely made up. Women had it better under the old Jewish tradition than they had under Doug's garbage.

I quoted from Rabbi Maurice Lamb's book on the subject in several posts on my blog a few years ago. He often quotes Maimonides who I would think knew more about traditional orthodox Judaism than Doug Phillips, as did Rabbi Lamb.

http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2008 ... h-way.html

They were permitted to work, they were not considered to be owned/was not property. Marriage of the very young was not tolerated. It was not the responsibility of the father to find his daughter a husband. A daughter was "ownerless" until she wed. The daughter had to willingly agree on the choice of the groom. They were not household servants or servants to their husbands. A wife had the right to work outside the home, so long as her family was properly cared for, and she was not restricted from certain "roles." Sex in the marriage was fully governed by the wife, and if a man left town on business, he was required by Jewish law to care for his wife's sexual needs before leaving and upon return. The wife had full rights to refuse her husband's sexual advances. Sex was seen as an equal union between two equal parties. Men did not bear responsibility for the sins of their wives. Etc.

[emmiedahl]

Didn't the Pearls write about sibling incest and how it is important to guard against it? I could have sworn I read something by them pertaining to this.

It's been implied. Either he or his daughter wrote that their bedrooms were built off the main living area to reduce privacy and that you were given a minute or two to dress before the parents would bust in. If you were not dressing, those doors were never to be closed. I wonder if the parents had locks.

I wish my teen son's bedroom had locks. I think he deserves to masturbate without worrying. I've had to train younger children to knock and wait for him to say "Come in." Not because we have had a problem, just because I think he has earned the privacy, being the fifth of nine children. He paid his dues room-sharing throughout his elementary school years.

[xDreamerx]

I was talking about the Bible as a text, not the traditions based around it. I just find it interesting that it makes no mention of this, and then has the Lot story which makes it appear as a permissible behaviour to the society that wrote and constructed the Bible. In cases where the woman was raped (which was a grounds for marriage) the father was paid a price for her. In my reading, that equates to ownership. I wonder how people who believe in the infallibility of the Bible reconcile this?

[emmiedahl]

I believe the father would be paid because he is losing out on a bride price, due to the woman no longer being marriageable by the standards of the day.

I believe that the Torah is truth, but some parts are descriptive while others are prescriptive, kwim? So this is describing a situation that happened (and keep in mind that it was repeated endlessly in oral tradition before being written down, have you ever played telephone? and the people were not educated scientifically, so a million year process is distilled into the first chapter of Genesis). It is not prescriptive, it is not saying what we *should* do. At some point the bride price was replaced with an amount that a man must pay in damages if he divorces his wife.

As for the New Testament, as a Jew I just have little interest in it so I don't really understand how it works, whether it is meant to be literal or figurative, prescriptive or descriptive or both, etc.

[xDreamerx]

I agree, but I still think that equates to a kind of ownership over her person. I'm not saying, that is relative to Christianity now. But rather that just because people believe doesn't mean they should sugar coat or try to explain away the...rather awful parts of the Bible. The beliefs of men and a culture can be separated from God. But it disturbs me that a lot of people seem unwilling to do that (not you, or most reasonable people). It's the kind of logic that is dangerous in fundie hands.

[emmiedahl]

I agree that at the time, men quite literally owned women. It's a damn shame and it was not true to the "worthy partner" (also translated incorrectly as helpmeet) idea that they were given In The Beginning. A lot of the Old Testament is appalling by modern Jewish standards, and I can't believe that fundamentalists want to bring back that system.

[xDreamerx]

This is a total threadjack, but I kind of did it that already so here goes. I have heard that the Gensis 2:3 (Adam and Eve) story was intended to be a critique of the Monarchy. Are there any articles I can find on this? I read a lot of interpretations of that story but none of them really took up the Monarchy critique.

[emmiedahl]

I was really interested so I just looked it up on Google and found nothing. I've never heard nor read of that in Jewish writings but that does not mean it is not there.

[Visionoyahweh]

I also question whether people seek out these lifestyles, at least sometimes, because it gives them the illusion of control over the very thing that they suffered earlier in life. Had lousy parenting? Be obsessed with parenting your own kids. Molested or promiscuous? Attempt to micromanage and protect your own children from their sexuality, dominating this part of their lives in order to do right by them. Had an abortion? Be pro-life now and have 15 kids to compensate. It's certainly not true of everyone, but I believe that it is true of at least some. It's also a whole lot more subtle and likely an unconscious compulsion rather than a decision to be an activist, making lemonade with the lemons you received. It's more of a denial issue and a total lack of self-awareness.

So much truth here. :clap: This is probably the best summary of fundamentalism I've read lately, as it applies to pretty much every man, woman, child, or family discussed on FJ.

[xDreamerx]

I was really interested so I just looked it up on Google and found nothing. I've never heard nor read of that in Jewish writings but that does not mean it is not there.

If ever do find anything, I'll share it. It was something a prof mentioned once and never really fully expanded on so it's been a question for me ever since.

[demgirl]

I wonder if your professor was alluding to John Milton's Paradise Lost? He wrote about republicanism and lived during the brief reign of parliamentary rule when King James was deposed. He also was a civil servant for Oliver Cromwell. He was a very strong believer in republicanism and wrote against monarchy in his treatises. AFter the Restoration, a ton of his work was burned and he had to go into hiding for fear of his life. So I could see how possibly you might pick up strains of that in Paradise Lost.

[xDreamerx]

I wonder if your professor was alluding to John Milton's Paradise Lost? He wrote about republicanism and lived during the brief reign of parliamentary rule when King James was deposed. He also was a civil servant for Oliver Cromwell. He was a very strong believer in republicanism and wrote against monarchy in his treatises. AFter the Restoration, a ton of his work was burned and he had to go into hiding for fear of his life. So I could see how possibly you might pick up strains of that in Paradise Lost.

No she wasn't. I know that for certain. I'm familiar with Mr. Milton :) I had to take an entire semester about Paradise Lost. He's the reason many people think Eve gave Adam an apple. I know about Cromwell and his little unpleasant detour lol. She was refering to the time of the Monarchy in accient Israel and how many people opposed it. I 'll keep looking.

[demgirl]

Ah. Well then, I got nothing. You know way more on me on Paradise Lost! I've never even read it -- I just know about Milton's other work from political science philosophy classes. :) That sounds really interesting, though, and please do share if you find something!

[Brainsample]

I believe the father would be paid because he is losing out on a bride price, due to the woman no longer being marriageable by the standards of the day.

I believe that the Torah is truth, but some parts are descriptive while others are prescriptive, kwim? So this is describing a situation that happened (and keep in mind that it was repeated endlessly in oral tradition before being written down, have you ever played telephone? and the people were not educated scientifically, so a million year process is distilled into the first chapter of Genesis). It is not prescriptive, it is not saying what we *should* do. At some point the bride price was replaced with an amount that a man must pay in damages if he divorces his wife.

As for the New Testament, as a Jew I just have little interest in it so I don't really understand how it works, whether it is meant to be literal or figurative, prescriptive or descriptive or both, etc.

Emmidahl,

I believe that you are confusing the European dowry with traditional Judaism and what is written in the Bible. The father was paid because if a man lied about her purity and ruined her reputation, or if he took her virginity against her will, she could not be remarried, and the father would have to support her for the rest of her life within that era, according to Moses. The "bride's price" that is in the Bible was more of a restitution and gesture to provide for the support of that woman because she could not marry. Lamb wrote in his book that the religious writings of the Jews stated that a wife or a daughter was not property and decried the concept as reprehensible. As a religious practice of Judaism itself, there is no buying or selling of a woman into/for marriage. Lamb supports this with documentation, back to before the diaspora.

Jewish culture later introduced the buying and selling of wives, but it was Jewish cultural tradition and not part of the religion according to Rabbi Lamb. From what I read in his book, the Mishnah speaks out against this. I defer to him as an expert. I also read supporting information in "Women or Chattel" which I also quote in that series on my blog.

Do you want me to post quotes from there that I took from Lamb's writings?

[3 is enough]

As far as Jana and JD being alone together goes, they did share Michelle's uterus for nine months! ;)

[jenny_islander]

Back to the original topic: it's part of the fundamentalist assumption that sex is a big inexorable Thing, a monster that rides around on the backs of men and boys. It is the job of women and girls to keep the monster asleep because it's unstoppable when it's awake. Because, to be blunt, all the monster wants is a cunt to fuck, no relationship will hold it back. All it takes is one second of waking up the monster--"defrauding" a man or boy--and it's fucky-fucky time.

What a horrible way to view another human being. All men and boys are helpless thralls of the sex monster and all women and girls are permeated with sex monster attractant, which they must cover with layers of cloth and attempts to pretend that they don't exist. No love, no relationship, no charity. Just mindless rutting and fucking.

Of course, this is just a variant of rape culture. "The world" knows all about the sex monster and sex monster bait. "Worldly" rape culture tends to view the sex monster as good, for men at least.

The Christianity I grew up in teaches that there is no sex monster. There are individual human beings, who are responsible for what they do with their own bodies, and there are relationships between human beings. The Christianity I grew up in looks at rape culture and says, "Get behind me, Satan."

[Brainsample]

Back to the original topic: it's part of the fundamentalist assumption that sex is a big inexorable Thing, a monster that rides around on the backs of men and boys. It is the job of women and girls to keep the monster asleep because it's unstoppable when it's awake. Because, to be blunt, all the monster wants is a cunt to fuck, no relationship will hold it back. All it takes is one second of waking up the monster--"defrauding" a man or boy--and it's fucky-fucky time.

What a horrible way to view another human being. All men and boys are helpless thralls of the sex monster and all women and girls are permeated with sex monster attractant, which they must cover with layers of cloth and attempts to pretend that they don't exist. No love, no relationship, no charity. Just mindless rutting and fucking.

Of course, this is just a variant of rape culture. "The world" knows all about the sex monster and sex monster bait. "Worldly" rape culture tends to view the sex monster as good, for men at least.

The Christianity I grew up in teaches that there is no sex monster. There are individual human beings, who are responsible for what they do with their own bodies, and there are relationships between human beings. The Christianity I grew up in looks at rape culture and says, "Get behind me, Satan."

That's what happens when you spiritualize sexuality, and you do it to such an extent, making marriage and procreation and everything having to do with gender a sacrament.